Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders

Abstract

A role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders proposes that perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to 2 forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles. Evidence from varied research paradigms substantiates that these consequences occur, especially in situations that heighten perceptions of incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles.

Full text

Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders
Alice H. Eagly
Northwestern University Steven J. Karau
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
A role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders proposes that perceived incongruity between
the female gender role and leadership roles leads to 2 forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less
favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the
prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that
attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are
that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles. Evidence
from varied research paradigms substantiates that these consequences occur, especially in situations that
heighten perceptions of incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles.
Leadership has been predominantly a male prerogative in cor-
porate, political, military, and other sectors of society. Although
women have gained increased access to supervisory and middle
management positions, they remain quite rare as elite leaders and
top executives. To explain this phenomenon, public and scientific
discussion has centered on the idea of a “glass ceiling”—a barrier
of prejudice and discrimination that excludes women from higher
level leadership positions (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987). To further this
discussion, we advance a theory of prejudice toward female lead-
ers and test the theory in relation to available empirical research.
This integrative theory builds on social psychologists’ tradition of
studying prejudice and stereotyping and industrial–organizational
psychologists’ tradition of studying perceptions of managerial
roles.
The popularity of the glass ceiling concept may stem from the
rarity of women in major leadership posts, despite the presence of
equality or near equality of the sexes on many other indicators. A
number of statistics thus suggest equality: In the United States,
women make up 46% of all workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2001b) and 45% of those in executive, administrative,
and managerial occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2001a); women possess 51% of bachelor’s degrees and 45% of all
advanced degrees (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). In contrast,
statistics pertaining to major leadership roles consistently show
inequality: Women constitute 4% of the five highest earning
officers in Fortune 500 companies and 0.4% of the CEOs (Cata-
lyst, 2000); 13% of senators, 14% of congressional representatives,
and 10% of state governors (Center for the American Woman and
Politics, 2001); and 2% of military officers at the level of brigadier
general and rear admiral or higher (U.S. Department of Defense,
1998). Similarly small proportions of women in most high posi-
tions also characterize other industrialized and industrializing na-
tions (Adler & Izraeli, 1994; Melkas & Anker, 1997).
Explanations for this sparse representation of women in elite
leadership roles traditionally focused on the idea that a lack of
qualified women created a “pipeline problem.” This shortage of
women has been ascribed to a variety of causes, including wom-
en’s family responsibilities (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999) and
inherited tendencies for women to display fewer of the traits and
motivations that are necessary to attain and achieve success in
high-level positions (e.g., Browne, 1999; S. Goldberg, 1993).
However, because the convergence of the sexes on many human-
capital variables raises questions about the sufficiency of such
explanations, it is vital to evaluate whether prejudice is one of the
causes of women’s rarity in major leadership positions. To this
end, we propose a role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders that (a) extends Eagly’s (1987; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman,
2000) social role theory of sex differences and similarities into
new territory; (b) proposes novel, testable predictions about prej-
udice and its consequences; and (c) yields an effective organizing
framework for a very large number of empirical findings from
laboratories, field settings, organizations, and public opinion polls.
In this article, we first explain the theory in general terms, then
elaborate it by explaining the moderating conditions that allow it to
make detailed predictions, and finally review empirical literature
relevant to the theory.
Role Congruity Theory: How Gender Roles and Leader
Roles Produce Two Types of Prejudice
In general, prejudice can arise from the relations that people
perceive between the characteristics of members of a social group
A draft of this article was written while Alice H. Eagly was a visiting
scholar at the Murray Research Center of Radcliffe Institute for Advanced
Study and supported by a sabbatical award from the James McKeen Cattell
Fund. The writing of this article was also supported by National Science
Foundation Grant SBR-9729449 to Alice H. Eagly. We thank Amanda
Diekman, Judith Hall, Lauren Gibbs, Eric Hansen, Madeline Heilman,
Mary Johannesen-Schmidt, Richard Martell, Tracie Stewart, Janet Swim,
Marloes Van Engen, Claartje Vinkenburg, and Wendy Wood for comments
on an earlier version of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alice H.
Eagly, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheri-
dan Road, Swift Hall 313, Evanston, Illinois 60208, or to Steven J. Karau,
Department of Management, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
Illinois 62901-4627. E-mail: eagly@northwestern.edu or skarau@cba
.siu.edu
Psychological Review Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2002, Vol. 109, No. 3, 573–598 0033-295X/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573
573
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.